Occam's Razor may be a useful tool to decide what idea is more practical to believe, but it doesn't bestow truth or even likelihood.
Just because it is simple and intuitive, doesn't mean it is more likely than the complex and counter-intuitive; why should it?
Besides, wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that you just have experiences and that's the end of the story; no real world?
That explanation of the world has a far, far smaller multitude of entities than a world filled with real atoms, stars and the rest of the universe.
O's Razor is no proof of likelihood.
Quote:
It's very likely that the world that I see is just as I see it.
Again, where do you get the idea that a naive, intuitive view of the world is more likely?
Why assume that I assume that your eyes aren't lying?
Why start with assumptions at all! It's not a good way to learn. If I went in to a classroom full of assumptions that I had absolutely no evidence for, I would soon have them changed.
You have no evidence that your eyes have
ever told you the truth.
You can't even give them the benefit of the doubt (a risky business in it's self) because you know that your eyes have lied to you in the past.